Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

JohnM

The conversation was/is not about the admissibility of evidence.

[John Mytton]

The conversation was/is not about the admissibility of evidence.

This thread went off the rails pages ago, the title of this thread is "Who killed J D Tippit"!
Start a new thread if you want to play "Forum Cop". Hahaha.

Btw Charles is kicking your Ass.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

This thread went off the rails pages ago, the title of this thread is "Who killed J D Tippit"!
Start a new thread if you want to play "Forum Cop". Hahaha.

Btw Charles is kicking your Ass.

JohnM

You've always had poor judgment, John

Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.

[Bill Brown]

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

JohnM

That is exactly right and in addition, the Defense will very rarely spend time in a trial arguing that evidence is faked and/or planted.  Doing so makes their position look desperate; casting a bad light on the defendant.

If the evidence has been admitted, it needs to be validated.  Once validated, the defense does not spend time arguing that it is not authentic.

[Charles Collins]

Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.

[Martin Weidmann]

Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.

So, we agree....

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation.

Because that's what it is. If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.

We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."

The so-called "paper trail" is ambivalent and inconclusive. But even if it wasn't how does paperwork dated in March 1963 prove that Oswald is owner of the rifle found at the TSBD in November 1963?

The photos only prove that Oswald was holding a rifle in March 1963.

There were no prints on the rifle, according to the FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the crime.

So, if not speculation, how exactly does the paper trail, photos and an alleged print on the rifle prove that the rifle found at the TSBD actually belonged to Oswald?


The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.

Indeed. One side frequently calls assumptions "evidence" and the other side doesn't.